ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anton Vinogradov ...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Service grid redesign
Date Thu, 09 Aug 2018 15:06:02 GMT
Real case is A/B testing.
When you want to allow new service usage only to 0.1% of users.
And only when you sure it works then replace all v1 with v2.

So, I vote for versions.
Let's do this in maven way (exact version, range, RELEASE or LATEST)

чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 17:55, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:

> Vyacheslav,
>
> For the case you are describing, I would take the same approach as we have
> for compute tasks. Keep the older version around only as long as there are
> active requests and then undeploy it automatically. No need to allow it
> linger around indefinitely.
>
> D.
>
> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Dmitry, it's not only about hot redeployment.
> >
> > Denis, I don't see such use case, because of the answer in a different
> > front.
> >
> > It relates to the best practices of SOA versioning [1] [2].
> >
> > For example:
> > * we have a cluster with service [name="MySevice", v="1"];
> > * I want to upgrade service to [name="MySevice", v="2"], but I have
> > clients which are using [name="MySevice", v="1"] and can't stop
> > processing;
> > * With service versioning, we are able to deploy new service near
> > existing service, then switch clients and undeploy outdated service.
> >
> > My only question is: are we going to implement such a feature [3] or
> > not? Maybe PMC don't see such feature in Service Grid roadmap.
> > IMO it's a good feature for a microservices platform.
> >
> >
> > [1] https://www.thbs.com/thbs-insights/soa-service-
> > versioning-best-practices
> > [2] https://www.ibm.com/blogs/bluemix/2017/08/rapidly-
> > developing-applications-part-6-exposing-and-versioning-apis/
> > [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-6069
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:48 PM Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I thought this was about automatic service redeployment, which should
> > have
> > > been a part of the current IEP, no? Can you please clarify?
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 9:26 AM, Denis Mekhanikov <
> dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Vyacheslav,
> > > >
> > > > It looks like an overcomplication to me.
> > > > Could you describe a case, that can be solved using versioning, but
> not
> > > > naming?
> > > >
> > > > Denis
> > > >
> > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:56, Vyacheslav Daradur <daradurvs@gmail.com
> >:
> > > >
> > > > > Denis, it's not about different users services implementations.
> > > > >
> > > > > A real use case is user's services API versioning which is being
> used
> > > > > widely t in SOAP/REST microservices infrastructure.
> > > > >
> > > > > In my opinion, it is about services with the same name and the same
> > > > > full class name, but different classes versions for example in
> > > > > different classloaders.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 PM Denis Mekhanikov <
> > dmekhanikov@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't think, that we really need this feature.
> > > > > > It seems to me, that if you want to use a different
> implementation
> > of a
> > > > > > service, you can assign a different name to it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Denis
> > > > > >
> > > > > > чт, 9 авг. 2018 г. в 16:32, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> > dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 4:41 AM, Vyacheslav Daradur <
> > > > > daradurvs@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi, Igniters!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I found a ticket about a service’s versioning [1].
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It’s out of scope IEP-17, but if we are going to
implement
> this
> > > > > > > > feature we should build a base in the first iteration
of
> IEP-17
> > > > > > > > because of change messages formats.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In case of the versioning which assumes that we are
able to
> > host
> > > > > > > > services with the same name, but with different
> class/version,
> > we
> > > > > > > > should introduce *service’s id* to manage service’s
lifecycle
> > > > instead
> > > > > > > > of service’s name.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My only concern would be on the usability side. Is user
going
> to
> > have
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > deal with IDs now, or will it be handled internally?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D.
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message